"Thumbs Down" for Ebert at IFP American Directors Panel at Cannes

A company of first time directors gathered on Tuesday for the IndependentFeature Project's annual panel of American Directors at Cannes hosted by"Siskel and Ebert's" Roger Ebert. A usual must-see for American press, thisyear's panel was marred by director cancellations (John Turturro was inabstentia) and Ebert's off-handed quips and self-important presence,resulting in a superficial exploration of the issues. While the intentionsof the IFP panel are honorable -- presumably to tackle the intricacies andchallenges that American directors face either in a world marketplace likeCannes or in their own unique cultural mega-market -- the most poignantmoment in the panel came when "High Art" (Directors Fortnight) directorLisa Cholodenko asked critic/moderator Ebert, "What is the differencebetween a 'Thumbs up' and a 'Way thumbs up'" -- which launched the panelistsinto a somewhat passionate discussion and interrogation of Ebert on thepower that reviews have in sustaining a film's play.

Taking the defensive, Ebert responded, "All rating systems are equallygoofy and ridiculous...thumbs are as silly as any of them." Jake Kasdan,whose film "Zero Effect" screens in Un Certain Regard, quickly asked Ebert,"What would happen if 'Siskel and Ebert' abandoned the thumbs?" After muchevasive dancing around the question, Ebert got himself off the hook withthe young directors by claiming, "People say 'Siskel and Ebert' have toomuch power, but I don't think we have nearly enough power compared to themarketing people, the advertising people, and the people who book the theaters."

For Kasdan, reviews did make and break his film, which already came andwent in America. "Zero Effect' tended to perform in accordance with thosetowns where there were really terrific reviews. Otherwise, they basicallywouldn't go," said Jake Kasdan. "It was brutal," he continued, speaking of his100 screen release across the United States. A nice opening sum, but"Zero Effect" disappeared over about a single month period. "A friendof mine wrote to me," related Kasdan, "Jake, somehow, I've missed your movie.Is it possible that it was only open for one day?" While not all the directorsmight share Kasdan's 'tragedy' of 100 screens and a four-week release,Tamara Jenkins's Fox Searchlight release of the "Slums of Beverly Hills"(Director's Fortnight) may come the closest when it opens this summer.At the other end of the spectrum, Japanese-born, Ken Yunome and his 3 hourdebut about love and loneliness in New York, "Island, Alicia" (Un Certain Regard)can only wish for 4 screens, let alone 100.

Ebert quickly moved the discussion away from reviews and into the battleindies fight for in exhibition. "If your film doesn't open strong and is not givenan opportunity to build through word of mouth, as films did historically in thepast," said Ebert, they will "open and close very quickly without ever having a fairshot at the audience, because they are muscled out by the 2000, 3000, or moreprints." Kasdun pointed to Portland's destruction of all its arthouses at thesame time he was shooting there while Ebert offered some hope in thefact that Landmark and Sundance will be building independent theaters soon.

This year's "American" panel also included two Canadians whose experiences upNorth mirror much of what Stateside directors go through. Don McKellar, whoscreened his print of "Last Night" for the first time in the "Quinzaine" section,"The review dependent thing -- I don't find that so bad -- because in some cases,that's all we have for publicity. But you have to remain optimistic, and why youmade your film, which was at least, in part in response to that juggernaut of the Hollywood film, of that exact replica film happening again and again. Andyou have to believe that others are going to resist that." Jack Blum, the otherCanadian filmmaker of "Babyface" (Quinzaine des Realisateurs) noted that Canadianfilms on Canadian screens account for less than 3%. So that's a battle that allof us are fighting."